14 counts, mainly of child molestation, after being on bail for about six years, culminates in a trial of four weeks that saw singer 'R. Kelly' found innocent.

Stories are conflicting about whether there were nine or eight men on the jury, but as early as Thursday morning three jurors wanted to find him guilty, while seven hours later they decided to acquit.

The bottom line is, it was not a question of whether or not the jurors thought he was guilty---the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt remains on the prosecutors, and when R. Kelly and the alleged victim both deny they are the participants of the video, the bottom line is that reasonable doubt remained.

R. Kelly has been accused of such acts in the past including when he married then 15-year-old singer Aaliyah in 1994 who was killed in a plane crash over six years later. The marraige was legal but quickly annulled anyway.

This jury's job, however, was not to decide if R. Kelly had ever had sex with children and/or created child porn using the events before---it was involving this single case. It's very similar to Michael Jackson---it's very likely he may have commited questionable acts with children before, but he was found innocent of the charges brought against him a few years ago because there was almost no proof that the events actually happened with the young boy in question, and it is said that his mother came off as someone who ultimately just wanted money.

One member of the supposed victim's family said it definately was her family member, and the lawyer then questioned her motives. Another swore it was definately not her kin.

Also, a mole on R. Kelly's back came into question as the lawyers pointed out it was not on the back of the man on the video. The prosecution pointed out freeze-frames which they thought showed otherwise.

Lisa Van Allen claimed to have had a threesome with the two of them, but Kell's lawyers claimed that she was trying to extort him.

He was facing fifteen years if convicted.